The heat is on. Fox News special review

[CORed]

I'm not opposed to the idea of government funded R&D for energy, but I don't really think that technology is the primary barrier to adopting alternative energy. We know how to build wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, solar thermal energy generators, nuclear fission reactors and we have apretty good idea how to do ocean thermal energy. We also know how to make fuel cells. Why aren't we using these (except nuclear fission) to any significant degree? One very simple reason: Fossil fuel is cheaper. I submit that the barriers to using renewable energy are more economic than technological. That is going to change in the next few decades (mayber soon).

Wacki is absolutely right about hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is one possible means of energy storage and transport. It may not even be the best means. The cheapest way to make hydrogen right now is from fossil fuels. Hydrogen can also be made by electolyzing water, with electricity coming from renewable sources or nuclear energy (fission or fusion, assuming we ever make fusion work). The fuel cell problem is not necessarily a show stopper. Hydrogen can also be burned. A car with a hydrogen-burning internal combustion engine may not be as efficient as a fuel cell car, but it will work, and produces minimal pollution (some NOx), and will likely be much cheaper to manufacture than a fuel cell car.

I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain but potentially huge, than to refining existing, but currently non-cost-effective technologies. I think the private sector will work the kinks out of renewable energy, once the price of fossil fuels becomes high enough to make it profitable. I also think the conversion from fossil fuel to renewables may happen much faster than many people imagine, once the economic factors favor it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain

[/ QUOTE ]

Most physicists think ITER is very low risk. It just requires time and money. Money isn't an issue, it's waiting the 20 years it takes to build and calibrate one of these things that is the problem. So, nobody wants to put forth the effort when your term in office is only 4 years and patents don't last that long.